Early French socialism reconsidered—I. The propaganda of Fourier and Cabet

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

French socialism in the 1830s and 1840s has often been criticised for its motley assembly of hopes and ideals, which is perhaps another way of saying that no single thinker dominated the period with a system of ideas which formed a paradigm for the general movement. The diversity of early French socialist thought always involves studying some figures and ignoring others, thus complicating any simple or comprehensive portrayal of socialism in this period. Many socialist writers in these two decades have forced individual claims on our interest and attention, but the entire movement deserves reconsideration if we are to appreciate its variety as well as discover why French socialism has so often been misunderstood and unfairly criticised for, among other points, lacking systematic coherence and practical political realism. An analysis of early socialist writers from their rhetorical perspective, focusing upon the disposition of arguments and the rhetorical techniques employed, does not support the accepted view. It is hardly necessary to rehearse the familiar contentions that the French socialists somehow lacked originality and critical depth, that they were wildly enthusiastic but politically impractical or tlitist, or that they were hopelessly utopian and misunderstood the nature of social oppression and the play of political forces required for radical social change. The most superficial, but nonetheless frequent, of such criticism boils down, really, to saying that they were ‘French’-emotional, dilettante, ingenious but unmethodical-as opposed to English (cool, rational, sceptical) or German (systematic, thorough, stolid). The merits of that criticism are not enhanced by the charge that a viewpoint is ‘unoriginal’ simply because a number of able writers happen to share it. One must also be unpersuaded by an argument that a thinker is ‘utopian’ when he is criticised on other points for being unsystematic or reformist. 1 Having sprung to an early defence of the French socialists, one must at the same time concede that there are a number of problems involved in trying to make sense of these writers, especially for the modern reader of from any ‘postMarxist’ critical perspective. But this difficulty may well be more our own problem than it is an indictment of a particular writer. Indeed, our present concern is to reveal the preconceptions and misconceptions that stand in the way of a clear view of what the French socialists were trying to do, and how they did it. It is true that such writers as Etienne Cabet (1788-1856), ThCodore Dezamy (1808-50) and Jean-Jacques Pillot (1808-77) were remarkably enthusiastic. The